I thought Romney was more interesting than Obama, but apparently Romney lied more than Obama. So I guess it's a wash.

LOL.... who lied more probably depends MOSTLY on who's doing the "fact checking" than what was actually said in the debate. IMO, I bet they were pretty close to each other in terms of the number of inaccuracies.

LOL.... who lied more probably depends MOSTLY on who's doing the "fact checking" than what was actually said in the debate. IMO, I bet they were pretty close to each other in terms of the number of inaccuracies.

Are there articles that go through Obama's lies? I've read a few about Romney, so I'd like to read some about Obama, if you can find some.

Yeah, I will have to take a long hard look at Johnson prior to casting my vote... ultimately the guy won't get elected but it's always best IMO to vote for the best available candidate regardless of his chances of getting electing.

I dont really even get into politics it seems every election i vote in i just feel like im voting for the lesser of two evils the debate wasnt anything really to talk about i expect things to get "entertaining" in the second and third debates....

Not inflate like make bigger because it's lesser. I'm talking inflate to make look what it's not. I seen this same topic being discussed yesterday.They said they were NOT counting certain people. I might have read wrong though.

Remember that i'm going to die is the best way I know to avoid trap of thinking you have something to lose, you're already naked, there's no reason not to follow your heart.

[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by The Black Wolf

Oh my! Silver, you're cute! You're like the young version of Leonardo DiCaprio!

Well, I believe they weren't counting the usual individuals that are discounted by the Labor department. Meaning those who are retired, no longer looking for work etc.

No longer looking for work has been controversial of course. But the other factors of individuals they don't include is routine and appropriate. One way or another this is a more 'positive' number then we've seen before. Providing nothing dirty about it gets unearthed in the coming days anyway.

Well, I believe they weren't counting the usual individuals that are discounted by the Labor department. Meaning those who are retired, no longer looking for work etc.

No longer looking for work has been controversial of course. But the other factors of individuals they don't include is routine and appropriate. One way or another this is a more 'positive' number then we've seen before. Providing nothing dirty about it gets unearthed in the coming days anyway.

There is nothing dirty about the unemployment rate rising or falling. Its perfectly normal. Next month it may go up.

There is no manipulation going on. Just some election year silliness. Why would anyone want to put out a false report? It benefits no one.

I do admire your optimism and positive outlook.

It would be overwhelmingly expedient politically to show that unemployment has gone down under a current administration\tenure of Congress in order to drum up public support.

There has been manipulation or, at best, 'negligence' before where the government studies have not included people who have simply given up trying to get a job. This figure deflates the unemployment figures and paints a very misleading picture.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.